Kasparov on Trump

They were dealing with economic hard times. As a rule, the more aggressive a country gets fighting it, the quicker they recover.

However, the combination of war debt and reparations set off hyperinflation.

"To pay for the large costs of the ongoing First World War, Germany suspended the gold standard (the convertibility of its currency to gold) when the war broke out. Unlike France, which imposed its first income tax to pay for the war, German Emperor Wilhelm II and the Reichstag decided unanimously to fund the war entirely by borrowing

However, in April 1921, the Reparations Commission announced the "London payment plan", ordering Germany to pay reparations in gold or foreign currency in annual installments of two billion gold marks plus 26% of the value of Germany's exports

The total reparations demanded were 132 billion gold marks, but Germany had to pay only 50 billion marks at the time, as the reparations were required to be repaid in hard currency, not the rapidly depreciating paper mark"

That last bit played an important role in setting off hyperinflation...

You need better fiction...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

 

Yeah?
So?

 

Which only means he is as disconnected from reality as all of the MSDNC drones that believe the same thing..

 

The actions of other European countries in relation to reparations was certainly a factor. But far from the only factor. Reparations are not cause for out of control social spending, which I’ve described. You can’t pay reparations if 90% of your budget is social spending. LOL

The point is Trump has strengthened the economy. If he wanted economic hard times to foment authoritarian government he would enact policies of limitless social spending. He has not. He is spending much more than I’d like though.

Bottom line, he’s taking no actions dictators of the past have and he’s not actively setting up economic circumstances where assuming control would be possible. Like Masha your opinion is based mostly on emotional response to personal dislike and incorrect information.

Masha is a quack that doesn’t know what autocracy is and you were unaware of Germany’s social welfare spending problem. When you want to dictate policy or accuse others of being autocratic it’s best if you are aware of more than one side of an argument and understand the meaning of key words used in dialogue with others. Just because you are unaware of historical facts beyond Wikipedia doesn’t make my posts fiction.

 

The reparations asked for more gold than was in the country. That was on top of the war debt.

Japan spent aggressively, at that time, and got out of the Depression quicker than any other country. You want to pretend the social spending was determinative, and it simply wasn't.

 

To continue:

"The inflation's roots were in World War One, which Germany financed with outsized budget deficits

Adam Fergusson authored a book on the subject, entitled When Money Dies – and many consider it to be the definitive work on the Weimar hyperinflation.

Only when the war was over, with the veil of censorship lifted but the Allied blockade continuing, did it become clear to all with eyes to read that Germany had already met an economic disaster nearly as shattering as her military one.

Germans everywhere were doing everything they could to convert their marks into other currencies." (Their money was dying as a medium of exchange: me)

https://www.businessinsider.com/wei...holiday-which-sent-the-mark-plunging-again-20

Long story short, you are writing fiction..

 

And instead of paying on the reparations they spent 90% of the budget on social endeavors domestically. Then, when Hitler came to power all assets went to preparation for WW2.

Comparing post ww1 Japan to post ww1 Germany is absurd. Germany financed a protracted war and was destroyed financially at the war’s end. Japan played a limited role in ww1 and the economy expanded during and immediately after the war. In fact, Japan took control of German holdings in the Pacific and China during/after ww1.

When the Great Depression finally hit Japan they did spend. But they also invaded Manchuria, forced Koreans to grow rice for Japan, enslaved Korean men in labor camps, and extracted profits from it’s “investments“ in China. There simply is no comparison between Japan and Germany as far as spending or anything else post ww1.

 

Still fiction.

You keep bringing up that one fact you have.

But it's microscopic compared to the deficit Germany had before they started trying to deal with the damage to the people. The New Deal was similar.

You are using an argument that died a hundred years ago. At this point it's just fiction. And it's there because the guys that are brainwashing you have an obsessive hatred of social programs.

 

Chess players do fast games as training. On rare occasion you can run short on time and be forced to move quickly. You need to be ready to do that.

That game was unimportant, and making a mistake against a skilled opponent in a game that's part fun and part homework happens to everyone.

 

Did you know by 1925-1929 the German government had stabilized the currency, renegotiated reparation schedules, and was making reparation payments in a growing economy? Did you know austerity attempts to further strengthen the economy were one more tool Hitler used to sway the public to his side? Does that sound at all familiar? What demographic in the US scares people into voting for them based on fear of an entitlement being cut or ended? It isn’t Trump.

I’m sorry my friend. It isn’t I who is brainwashed. You are the one set on only one fact—reparations. I’m able to accept all the historical evidence, including the above paragraph. You were unaware of these facts and unwilling to consider them when pointed out to you. Just like you comparing Japan and Germany post ww1. You are completely unaware of the stark differences and only care that both participated in Keynesian type spending at certain points between the wars.

 

Republicans are the ones doing austerity at the moment.

Actually, Ferguson, the leading historian on the subject, says war debt, not reparations. That's the SI, the Standard Interpretation...

The governments that responded vigorously to the Depression got out of it faster, and the weaker the response, the slower the recovery. That would include social spending.

You have yet to make your case. The debt was massive before the new wave of social spending started. The relevant metric would be how much that added to the debt, balanced against it's contribution to the economy. It's not significant.

Which brings up why you keep babbling about social spending. It's because the guys that brainwashed you hate social spending.

 

A couple more mistakes you’ve made to add to the long existing list. Of course republicans are doing the austerity. And progressives scare their constituents to the polls by opposing the austerity. Just like Hitler did. You really don’t have much understanding of this subject. Your brainwashing comments are pure projection. You don’t know enough facts to make logical conclusions. All you can post is repetition of others biased opinions.

Another mistake you’ve made is assuming the propensity to spend on social programs popped up after ww1. It didn’t. It continued after ww1. The populace was already conditioned to the idea before the war.

You do know your position fails the logic test, right. Say my household has bills to pay—maybe a big car payment. I can’t spend all my money on lottery ticket, steak dinners, and massages and expect to make that car payment. Look at Venezuela. Social spending was fine as long as oil prices were high. When they fell, spending needed to fall. But it didn’t until there just wasn’t any cash.

We already saw Japan spent more than it had. To fill the gap, they started instigating subjugation of other people. Guess what, that’s what Germany eventually turned to as well.

The brainwashed are the ones who can’t see that spending more than you have always leads to either collapse or violence against others. Japan vs. Germany is proof it leads to the same place whether war debt or reparations (or whatever you want to call it) are part of the equation or not.

I know I can’t get through to you because you believe social spending always benefits. I’m pragmatic on the economic side. If the money is there and people want it, fine. But when it inevitably goes bad, I don’t want to hear whining about it like we always do. (There was war debt, oil prices fell, the right people weren’t in charge, waaaagh, waaagh).

On the human nature side I’m opposed because of the negative effects on individual liberty, self sufficiency, and self worth. But if the money isn’t there social spending must cease or decrease. Otherwise very bad things are likely to happen. History shows this clearly, and only the most dogmatic can’t accept the reality you can’t continue to spend what you don’t have.

 

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I wish I felt flattered..

You still don't have a counterargument to the Standard Interpretation. I've watched historians and economists argue about this for over a generation. If you knew enough to discuss this, there are some things it would have been nice to go over. But then, if you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have tried using that goofy social spending idea.

Your opposition to social spending is straight out of the 1800s. It's also a result of your ignorance of macroeconomics...

A for effort, F for results.

 

I just gave you a lesson in macroeconomics. I’ve presented facts you were unaware of. I’ve pointed out your grave errors on when social spending started, how Japan and Germany differed post WW1, on how war debt and reparations were able to be paid by the late 1920’s, and how Hitler leveraged opposition to austerity. You were not aware of any of these facts.

You only know one interpretation that society has deemed most desirable. It isn’t based on reality because it fails to account for factors I’ve mentioned you knew nothing about. How can you claim to be correct when you are unaware of 90% of the relevant information? Could it be that you appeal to authority and refuse to examine an issue yourself? Maybe.

We shouldn’t make decisions based on partial information. Especially when complete information is available if someone wants it. You shouldn’t just listen to what people you like tell you. That’s what happened post WW1 in Germany and Japan and look at the results.

 

I can just hear him making that claim....

 

That's the best laugh I've had in weeks, thanks.

 

Very possible. But it doesn’t really matter who says what, it’s reality. Do some research on creation and solidification of central powers to address C19 in countries all around the world.

 

Well, when you can provide some facts and intellectual argument of your own we can continue.

As long as the only understanding of macroeconomics you can articulate is that government social spending is always positive long and short term, there really isn’t much we can do but laugh at your position.

While we laugh at your position, here’s another tidbit you didn’t know. German social spending began mostly under Bismarck who admitted he was attempting to out-socialize the “socialists” that threatened the status quo government of the time. Well, it was a nice try, but didn’t work long term, did it? Did they teach you that when they were feeding you chosen bits of information in Macroeconomics class? LOL

 

You way out of your depth, you have one fact, and you can't show us how it's relevant. So we're done for now.

I knew about Bismarck almost a half century ago.

Developed countries do social spending now. It's part of what makes it all tick. It's called sanity..

 

One fact? I’ve presented many facts. Facts you can’t dispute and weren’t aware of. If I was out of my depth you would be able to present facts and an intellectual argument instead of just appealing to authority as your default position.

Social spending at those levels in the circumstances we are discussing was insanity. Obviously. As I already stated, social spending can be sustainable (at least for a time). But there will be consequences. And in cases like post WW1 Germany, unfettered social spending led to a lot of death and destruction.

I’ll take your continued lack of intellectual argument as your concession. As is my custom, I thank you for helping me educate third parties who are interested in truth about history and modern progressivism.

 

Sorry, I said we were done, but you are such a hoot.

I do have one comment, you badly need to learn about macroeconomics.

 

More babbling?

 

I’ll gladly let the third party reader be the judge of that. If you had a macroeconomics argument that refuted my point you would have been able to provide it in detail. Again, thanks for conceding and helping others learn.